Is Bigamy (under sections 494, 495 IPC and now Section 82 BNS) a Cognizable and non-bailable offence, as much as it applies to State of Andhra Pradesh?

Posted on June 27 by ShadesOfKnife

While I am fighting ‘legally’ to get a FIR registered against the OP for her crimes of Bigamy here, I decided to pick up on one of my legal goals. If State of AP made sections 494, 495 IPC cognizable and non-bailable offences through a State Amendment here, it sure must now evaluate the Section 82 BNS and decide if a State Amendment is again required. Begin with the standard steps.

Sent representations to Home and Law Departments on 11-Jun-2026 which were delivered on 15-Jun-2026.

2026-06-10 Representation 1 to Home - Regd State Amendment to New Criminal Laws

On 17-Jun-2026, the representation sent to Home Department was forwarded to DGP Office, Mangalagiri for his ‘remarks’ about the issues raised in my representation.

Index to my Life Goals is here.

Are BCI and State Bar Councils Statutorily empowered to Levy Fees for Transfer of Enrollment?

Posted on June 27 by ShadesOfKnife

After this case here, now again, I am conflicting with Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh (BC-AP) and Bar Council of India (BCI) regarding their charging of illegal Fees for Transfer of Enrollment from one State Bar to another. This violates the Section 18 – Transfer of name from one State roll to another of Advocates Act 1961.

In total both Bar Council usurped a total of Rs.7750/- from me to do a task for which the Parliament set a fee. Zero.

1. Fees charged by Bar Council of AP to provide me the NOC : Rs.2000/- (Bankers Check. No. 631280 in the name of Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh)
2. Fees charged by Bar Council of India to provide me the Transfer Order : Rs.5000/- (D.D. No. 631341 in the name of Secretary, Bar Council of India)
3. Fees charged by Bar Council of AP to issue an endorsement for me (in Original): Rs.750/- (D.D. No. 415310 in the name of Secretary, Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh)

It is frustrating to note that the people who run these statutory bodies, despite being fully aware what they are doing is illegal. No excuse or mercy to be shown to such unscrupulous people.

On 24-Jun-2026, I sent the secretaries of both Bar Councils an email demanding my fees to be returned. Of course, I am not in any delusion that they will comply with my demand. These lot are think skinned. This is just prerequisite before filing a Writ Petition.

2026-06-24 Return of fees illegally charged by AP Bar Council and Bar Council of India

Subsequently On 24-Jun-2026, I sent a representations to both Bars through Speed Post which were delivered on 29-Jun-2026. Now to wait for response, if any.

Index of Bar Council Antics here.

Index to my Life Goals is here.

Are Offices of Dowry Prohibition Officers in AP designated as Police Stations?

Posted on June 3 by ShadesOfKnife

Continuing from Round-1 litigation here, this page captures the Round-2 litigation efforts.

Now that the Respondent #3 in WP(PIL).No. 115/2025 admitted to AP High Court that Dowry Advisory Boards were activated hurriedly from August 2025, the next step was to check if the Dowry Prohibition Officers are actually performing the DPO Activities (specifically the 6 police powers) as the Government of Andhra Pradesh mandates under G.O.Ms.No. 69 dt: 24-Jun-1989. I filed RTI applications as mentioned below and the summary of the replies is captured in an Excel tracker.

On 05-Jun-2026, based on some of my observations, I sent an email representation to the District Collectors (who are designated as Chairmen/Chairperson of the District Dowry Advisory Boards u/s 8B(4) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961) giving my ‘suggestions’ on 6 aspects. The following is that email. Around 50 email IDs failed.

2026-06-05 Email Representation to the Chairs of Advisory Boards in AP

Quite a few replies received to my original RTI application filed in March 2026. Prepared the following summary.

Tracking of RTI Replies

The representation reached the Revenue Department on 15-Jun-2026 (Speed Post Consignment/Tracking Number: EN538130321IN). Now wait for four weeks for any response and then file the WP(PIL) before APHC.

Dowry Prohibition Officers of Telangana working?

Posted on January 16 by ShadesOfKnife

After moving a PIL before AP High Court here, now I chose to approach Telangana High Court with same prayers.

As usual, we have the routine drill to file RTIs which was done in 2025 itself! The following are the RTI applications (along with First and Second Appeals)

RTI Application to Home Department (Prosecutions) of TS. Deemed Refusal.

P3 2025-07-26 RTI Filed to TS Home Department

First Appeal to Home Department (Prosecutions) of TS. Deemed Refusal. Again.

P4 2025-08-25 First Appeal Filed TSRTI-FAA-HOM-25-08-25-DI-4274

Finally the Second Appeal to Telangana State Information Commission.

P5a 2025-10-18 Second Appeal to Telangana State Information Commission

2026-03-11:

PIL Filed and S.R. No. given. 11482/2026.

Index to all Goals here.

Dowry Prohibition Officers of Andhra Pradesh working?

Posted on July 13, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

After failing to make sense of the hypocrisy of Police and Judiciary on the fact that Dowry giving is equally punishable as much as Dowry taking under same section i.e., Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, so I decided to go in a different route.

The usual combo of offences that Police add to a FIR in a matrimonial crime is Section 498A IPC (Max Imprisonment is 3 years with fine) + Section 3 of DP Act (Imprisonment not less than five years with fine) + Section 4 of DP Act (Imprisonment not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine).

So, this time my attack is to target the larger offence in this combo i.e., Section 3 of DP Act (Imprisonment not less than five years with fine) and cripple the false Criminal matrimonial cases to half.

How to do that? I found one aspect from the DP Act itself that I can use to poke the eyes of devil of the false Criminal matrimonial cases. Section 8B of DP Act. As is evident, this is just the first piece of the larger puzzle. Few more PILs are necessary to break the back of this nonsense but one may not survive until that glorious moment. I will document next steps/PILs shortly.

After some research and RTI applications, found that Government of Andhra Pradesh under G.O.Ms.No. 69 dt: 24-Jun-1989 and some other G.O.s, designated the Revenue Divisional Officers/Sub-Collectors take up cases under Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, instead of Police Department. Now, every tom, dick and harry in our Sunshine State knows that the Revenue Divisional Officers/Sub-Collectors in our State are NOT taking up cases under Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 due to ignorance or reluctance. Quite a nice bit of realization that this deserves a PIL to fix it! Hence this PIL.

Here is the G.O. copy received from Women Development and Child Welfare Department, Government of AP. It is not legible so better you file RTI and get a neat copy for yourself.

1989-Jun-24 G.O.Ms.No. 69

Here is the Petition copy:

2025-07-08 Dowry Prohibition Officers under sec 8B of DPA v0.1

On 16-Jul-2025, Court-1 heard me and directed Respondents to file Counter.

Sandeep Bhavan Pamarati Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors on 16-Jul-2025

On 31-Jul-2025: Contacted the Special GP today seeking to know if any instructions were received but she clarified no instructions were yet issued. She did say it is a for a ‘good cause‘. Even though I know that already, happy that, a woman backed my PIL

On 08-Oct-2025, as expected, no Counter was filed by the Respondents and shamelessly, sought time and the ever-benevolent High Court granted them 3 months time.

NDOH: 28-Jan-2026

1 Sandeep Bhavan Pamarati Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors on 08-Oct-2025

On 15-Nov-2025, unexpectedly, I got to know that the Director, Women and Development and Child Welfare Department, Guntur has issued a letter to all Collectors and District Magistrates vide Lr.No. WDC02-25022/2019-PROGRAMS SEC. dt:04-08-2025. Content? On 16-Jul-2025, the AG’s office shot a letter to Director, WDCW Department, Guntur regarding my PIL, since on the same day the first hearing happened! Here is the copy of that letter. Thanks to Vinay Kumar K _/\_

2025-08-04 Women And child welfare department issue letter for distirct Collectors

On 28-Jan-2026, Court-1 did not convene. Still the Office of AG sent me a copy of the Counter filed on behalf of Respondent No.3 (Women Development and Child welfare Department). Read it. Share it. Enjoy it.

2026-01-28 Reply by R3 LAW040301283

Prepared a ‘nice’ Rejoinder and filed into Court on 05-Feb-2026. Let’s see what happens next. Thanks a lot to ChatGPT and Google Gemini for proof-reading and improving my Rejoinder!

2026-02-05 Rejoinder to the Counter of R3 v0.1

No new date yet. Court-1 was not convened. Need to mention on Monday.

On 11-Feb-2026, the PIL was listed but did not reach. It was listed for 18-Mar-2026.

On 18-Mar-2026, what will happen?

Never expected that someone at the stature of the Chief Justice of a High Court can be such a dumb-ass idiotic muff. Read the Order below yourself and tally it against the Prayers of PIL.

2026-03-18 Sandeep Bhavan Pamarati Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors on 18-Mar-2026

Silver lining is even for name same (only for this PIL sake), Dowry Advisory Boards were activated hurriedly from August 2025. Let’s see if this continues. To check same, already filed RTI applications to all three Respondents. Still awaiting replies.

EN500288002IN delivered at AP POLICE HQ, Mangalagiri on 30 Mar 2026
Representation to SPIO, DGP Office, regarding DPO+Police Activities wrt DP Act/G.O.Ms.No. 69
Wait until 30-Apr-2026

EN500287885IN delivered at AP Secretariat on 30 Mar 2026
Representation to PIO, Revenue Department, regarding DPO Activities
Wait until 30-Apr-2026

EN500287885IN delivered at Guntur on 30 Mar 2026
Representation to PIO, Commissioner of WDCW Department, regarding DPO Activities
Wait until 30-Apr-2026

I did receive some replies based on which I am initiating Round-2 of the litigation on this subject here.

Same attack to be done in Telangana, Kerala and Karnataka too. RTIs filed. Telangana PIL is here.

Index to all Goals here.

Implementation of A4 paper usage in District Courts in Andhra Pradesh

Posted on September 22, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

After some ground work (Representation to Registrar and RTIs to Home Department), got the PIL filed into AP High Court.

Here is the copy of WP(PIL) No. 142 of 2023 petition…

2023-09-12 WP(PIL) for A4 Paper usage v0.1

It was listed on 21/09/2022 and miraculously, I got to speak nothing but still I am happy because…

CJ to GP for Home: What is the difficulty in issuing the gazette notification for so long?
GP for Home: I need time to seek instruction.
CJ to GP for Home: Granting 2 weeks time. Listed for 04/10/2023

After around 2 more weeks from previous date of listing… today (18/10/2023) I appeared before Court-1 since it was miraculously listed. I learnt later that, Wednesdays are for PILs.

Waited until 3.15PM but my case did not come up for hearing.

By the time I reached home, I was in for a pleasant surprise. The following Circular was issued on same date, for usage of A4 size paper (both sides printing) in all District Courts and Forums, but this is effective from 20-12-2023 (don’t know why, because TS HC passed similar circular with immediate effect!).

2023-10-18 ROC 502 Circular - A4 papers usage (both sides) in District Courts

The index is here.

Do you know that there is time limit of 60 days to dispose of a Domestic Violence case in India under sec 12(5) of PWDV Act?

Posted on August 20, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Legislature set a time limit of 60 days for a Domestic Violence case to be disposed as prescribed under sec 12(5) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Here are the Rules made under this Act. But the ground reality is totally different. And I decided to address this issue. Head-on.

NOTE: Since too much thought was going into decide if this matter has to dealt as a WP or a WP(PIL), I decided to do BOTH. First a WP/CrlP, for my individual case and then a WP(PIL) for public benefit.

RESULTS:

Won the individual battle here…
Won the PIL battle too despite it getting dismissed by the Honourables. Read further down this page.

Go here for other cases I dealt with personally…

Law in question (as it stands today):

12. Application to Magistrate.—
(1) An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act:
Provided that before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider.
(2) xxxxx
(3) xxxxx
(4) xxxxx
(5) The Magistrate shall Endeavour to dispose of every application made under sub-section (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing.

Support/Inspiration from some High Courts:

Andhra Pradesh High Court: https://www.shadesofknife.in/naresh-kumar-yalla-vs-state-of-telangana-on-21-jul-2022/
Karnataka High Court: https://www.shadesofknife.in/rajamma-h-vs-thimmaiah-v-on-09-jun-2022/
Telangana High Court: https://www.shadesofknife.in/p-parvathi-vs-pathloth-mangamma-on-7-jul-2022/ [Guidelines passed]
To-do: Find more useful judgments
To-do: Contact Chairpersons of State Women Commissions of various States and ask for timely implementation of DV Act.
To-do: Find oldest ‘pending’ DVC cases in each of the 13 districts of AP, to emphasize the traversity.

Current Status in AP:

Action Taken:

Filed RTI to all 13 District Judge Court Complexes in Andhra Pradesh seeking number of cases closed within 60 working days as prescribed u/s 12(5). If no cases disposed off in 3 years, strike down Sec 12(5) from the Act.

On 2022-06-28:

Sent Reg Posts to all 13 District Judge Courts in AP, asking for information on

how many DV cases were filed in 2019, 2020 and 2021 in their jurisdictional district,
how may were disposed in 2019, 2020 and 2021 in their jurisdictional district, and
how many were disposed within 60 days, in 2019, 2020 and 2021 in their jurisdictional district.

They have 30 days time to reply to me. Will file the PIL in August.

As expected the DV cases closed within statutory 60 days is abysmally low.

Parties:

Petitioner-in-person: Sandeep Pamarati
Respondents: From High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Union of India and State of Andhra Pradesh

1. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the Registrar General
  AP High Court Buildings,
  Nelapadu, Amaravathi,
  Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh
  PIN: 522202
2. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary,
  Ministry of Law and Justice, Dept. of Legal Affairs,
  A Wing, 4th Floor, Shastri Bhawan,
  Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi, 110001
3. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary,
  Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs
  Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
  New Delhi, 110001
4. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary,
  Ministry of Women and Child Development
  Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
  New Delhi, 110001
5. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary,
  Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment
  Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
  New Delhi, 110001
6. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
  Home Department, AP Secretariat,
  Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, 522503
7. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Secretary to Government,
  Law (Legislative Affairs and Justice) Department, AP Secretariat,
  Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, 522503
8. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
  Department of Women Development & Child Welfare
  Office of Special Commissioner, 4th Floor Jampani Towers,
  Lodge Centre, Amaravathi Road, Guntur-522006
9. National Commission for Women, Rep by Chairperson
  Plot No 21, FC33, Institutional Area,
  Jasola, New Delhi, Delhi 110025
10. Andhra Pradesh State Commission for Women, Rep by Chairperson
  Flat No. 506, 4th Floor, MGM Capital Building, Dr. YSR Arogya Sri Complex,
  Chinakakani, Mangalagiri, Guntur. Pin : 522503
11. National Judicial Academy, Rep by The Director,
  Bhadbhada Road, Suraj Nagar PO,
  Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462044
12. A.P. Judicial Academy, Rep by The Director,
  Gandhi Nagar, Nehru Nagar Colony, West Marredpally,
  Secunderabad, Telangana 500026
13. Law Commission of India, Rep by The Member Secretary,
  Lok Nayak Bhavan, ‘B’ Wing, 2nd & 4th Floor,
  Khan Market, New Delhi -110003
14. Bar Council of India, Rep by the Secretary,
  21, Rouse Avenue, Institutional Area,
  New Delhi Pin Code – 110002
15. Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by The Secretary
  Ground Floor, A.P. High Court Building,
  Nelapadu, Amaravati, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh
  PIN: 522 239

Remedy:

File a writ u/Act 226 read with Art 227 seeking direction from High Court of AP to all the Trial Courts in the State which deal with Domestic Violence cases, to mandatorily invoke the time limit of 60 days to dispose of a DV case, as prescribed under sec 12(5), whenever an application for interim reliefs, under sec 23(1), was prayed/sought for also in the spirit of Sec 309 CrPC.

Dilemma: To file WP or WP(PIL)? Why not, both?

Drafting: WP Done in the form of CrlP r/w Art 226 and 227 here. WP(PIL) is pending (u/Art 226 and 227)

Reliefs:

Call for records for the DV cases are disposed in 60 days from Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam, Guntur, Chittoor, West Godavari, Kadapa, Krishna Districts as they did not give data to RTI applications.
Acknowledge the total failure of the implementation of Statutory Compliance of Sec 12(5) of PWDV Act.
Appoint an amicus/LCI to study reasons for this failure in State of AP.
Direct all District Unit Heads to ensure the DV cases are disposed in 60 days (To tackle such scenarios, you can use the Supreme Court judgment to force the Trial judge to come up with case calendar for the entire case, which is available here)
Setup a periodic monitoring mechanism to report the delays in DV case disposal publicly on AP High Court website.

Supporting Case laws:

Mewa Singh and others Vs Sukhjeet Kaur on 29 April 2013 (PHHC: appearance of respondents disposed off)
Ayishabi Vs Shahul Hameed on 16 July, 2014 (KerHC: Dispose within 3 months)
Kuppusamy Vs Radhika on 21 July, 2017 (MadHC: Dispose DVC in 2 months)
Sushila Devi Vs Vikas Kumar Singhal And Ors on 9 Feb 2018 (RajHC: Dispose within 2 months)
Tillottama Kumari Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 16 May 2019 (PatHC: Dispose DVC in 6 weeks)
Maya and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 19 Mar 2021 (AllHC: Dispose DVC in 2 months)
Suyalaly and Anr Vs Alphin Jeyasingh and Ors on 29 Nov 2021 (MadHC: Dispose within 2 months)
Vani Santhosh Babu Vs Vijaya Laxmi Vani on 3 Mar 2022 (TelHC: Dispose in 60 days)
Rajamma H Vs Thimmaiah V on 09 Jun 2022 (KarHC: Dispose DVC within 2 weeks)
Mrugesh Wasnik Vs Shweta Mrugesh on 22 Jun 2022 (BomHC: Dispose DVC within 3 months)
P Parvathi Vs Pathloth Mangamma on 7 Jul 2022 (TelHC: Directions issued regd appearance of respondents)
Naresh Kumar Yalla Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jul 2022 (TelHC: Dispose DVC in 1 month)
Sandeep Pamarati Vs State of AP and Anr on 29 Sep 2022 (APHC: Disposal of DVC in 60 days/3 months (around 20 working days in a month); my first win AP HC!)

Writ Public Interest Petition:

Filed this PIL [WP(PIL)/182/2022] in Oct 2022 but got listed on 14 Nov 2022 before Court-1 of AP HC. Prepared well to argue the matter and hoped to get notices issued to 15 respondents on the petition. But the ;category (For Orders of Court) under which this cases was listed’ and ‘no final WP number given’ made it clear to me that this will be dismissed.

Case status:

I went to podium and began with intro as PIP and then informed there is no personal interest in this PIL and how. That’s all… It was dismissed as not maintainable. Not sure what legal reasons were mentioned in the dismissal order. CJ said, tomorrow I will come with a petition to early dispose another kind of case type. I don’t think this is a legal reason.

Here is the Writ Petition Copy:

2022-10-11 WP(PIL) against APHC and 14 Ors v0.1

Here is the dismissal order.

Sandeep Pamarati Vs High Court of AP and 14 Ors on 14 Nov 2022

Interesting update…

Just after a week from date of the dismissal of my WP-PIL, the following Circular gets issued by AP HC in Nov 2022. Interesting, because earlier circular, issued in Oct 2022, did NOT have a deadline!!! Seems my now-dismissed-PIL is working it’s magic.

2022-Oct-20 Circular:

2022-10-20 CIR_ROC559-20.10.22 Directions for endeavoring to enhance the disposals

…. and then…

2022-Nov-23 Circular:

OPCELL-ROC560-23.11.22

—

The following is the circular forwarded to Anantapur District Judiciary.

2022-11-23 Clearance of Old Cases (ALL those cases instituted prior to 2018)

I AM HAPPY AND SMILING.

MASTER LIST here.

Are State Bar Councils Statutorily empowered to Levy Fees for Gaps in academics during Enrollment?

Posted on May 15, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Goal: To question the legal basis on which Bar Council of AP is charging fees for any gaps in academics of a LL.B Graduate during Advocate enrollment process, apart from taking an affidavit to that effect.

Note: Similar efforts initiated here to tackle the illegal fees charged for Transferring enrolment from one State to another. Pathetic that one has to fight his own parent organizations.

During my enrollment process, Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh (BC-AP) had asked me to pay Rs.7000/- towards 10+ years of gap between my last graduation and LL.B degree. Since I did not believe then that BC-AP (no State Bar Council, for that matter!) never had any statutory power to levy and collect such fees, I paid the said fees duly through SBI Bank challan. My enrollment finished successfully with BC-AP on 17 March 2022 and I became an advocate enrolled with BC-AP (AP/646/2022)… Yippeee!!!

But later, I noticed from other friends who enrolled with Other State Bar Councils, that they were NOT charged any fees for gaps in their academics. This led me to dig deeper and to my astonishment, yes, indeed, no State Bar Council has any statutory power to levy any fees other than that is prescribed in Advocates Act 1961. This decision from Kerala High Court nailed it here (WP before single bench) and here (appeal to Division Bench). The icing on the cake is Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLPs with a 1-liner here. Armed with this information, I decided to challenge BC-AP on this aspect and recover my fees from them.

Steps Taken:

1. Filed a 1-page Representation to BC-AP

2. Filed a 1-page RTI application to BC-AP

I received a missed call from Bar Council landline on 23-May-2022, but none spoke when I called back. Hmmmm!

3. Received this reply from BC-AP. Interesting Answers!

2022-06-02 Reply to RTI application

Interestingly, BCI has earlier in March replied to my RTI application stating that, they do NOT have any knowledge if any State Bar Council is charging fees for gaps in academics. The following is the proof. So BC-AP doing naughty things without knowledge of (AND necessary ratification/approval from) BCI. Spooky…!

2022-03-05 BCIND R E 22 00126-No Knowledge as to State BC taking fee for Gap during enrollment

4. Filed another RTI seeking more information about the resolution that BC-AP passed basis which they are levying unauthorized fees for gaps in academics.

5. Got a reply on 27-Jun-2022.

P10 2022-06-27 Reply to RTI application dt 2022-06-14

6. WP against BC-AP and make BCI as respondent no.2. Petition ready. To be filed on 23rd August, 2022. After 3 weeks of to and fro with Filing Section, the Writ Petition is numbered and will be listed next Monday, tentatively.

Here is the copy of petition filed.

2022-09-12 WP against Gap fees by BC-AP v2.0

7. The WP is listed before Court-14, for Sep 19, 2022 Monday for Initial hearing before Hon’ble Single Bench to issue notices to Respondents. But the Judge was on leave so obtained a new date from Justice Ninnala Jayasurya.

8. As per the interim Order passed, the WP was supposed to be listed on 21-Sep-2022, but it was not listed. What do I do now?

2022-09-19 Sandeep Pamarati Vs the Secretary BCAP and Anr

9. Today noticed that a senior advocate has filed vakalath in the case. Nice…

10.Sent an email to BCI (at [email protected]) hoping for some positive help…

… and waiting for listing of the case… Not going to mention the matter. Let’s see…

11. The email kind of worked! Actually I had reached out to the Standing Counsel for BCI at AP High Court also with same request to transfer my WP also to Supreme Court just like others here. But I was made aware about this case by my dear friend Dr. Parasar Sarvepalli (https://498anlr.wordpress.com) in March 2024!!!

… Phewwwwwwwwww… In total there are 10 more cases tagged with mine… Hehe… Mine got tagged to them…

Since I was not aware about this case until March 2024, I could not participate in the case proceedings virtually. Considering that my original WP at AP High Court is no longer relevant, I stopped pursuing it before APHC. One less headache.

2023-Oct-17

My petition [hehe actually BCI’s transfer petition against my WP at APHC: Transfer Petition (Civil) No.2734/2023)] was listed and heard.

Secretary BCI Vs Sandeep Pamarati and Anr on 17 Oct 2023

Notice was issued, but I received no notice, that is because my address in the memo of parties is old address where I do not live anymore. 🙁 So sent another email on 08-Mar-2024 (Mahasivarathri)…

The bundle was last listed on 2024-01-17. Next computer-generated date is on 18-03-2024 before 3-Judge FULL bench (Court-1 of CJI)

Do not know what happened on 18-03-2024 but the case (and the bundle) is adjourned to 08-04-2024.

2024-03-18 Gaurav Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors on 18 Mar 2024

Seems my case was not reached on 08-04-2024. The case is adjourned to 22-04-2024.

22-04-2024:

Arguments heard and concluded. Judgment reserved.

2024-04-22 Gaurav Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors on 22 Apr 2024

30-07-2024:

Judgment pronounced. I won. But not all prayers are granted.

2024-07-30 Gaurav Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors on 30 Jul 2024

18-12-2024:

Filed the below Written Arguments, only to get this WP closed. I have no hope that HC Registry will close it proactively.

2024-12-16 Written Arguments in W.P. No. 30232 of 2022

15-02-2025

Phew!! At last the WP is closed.

2025-03-21 Sandeep Pamarati Vs the Secretary BCAP and Anr

Index of the Bar Council Antics is here.

Index of my life goals here.

Hrishikesh Jaiswal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Posted on November 7, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A NLIU Bhopal student, Hrishikesh Jaiswal, had filed this WP, in-person seeking effective implementation of the Motor Vehicle Rules in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

Notice issued

Hrishikesh Jaiswal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others on 25 Oct 2021

PIL – Principal District Judges to have Writ Jurisdiction by implementing Article 32(3) of Constitution

Posted on September 27, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Taking inspiration from the article regarding the proposal of learned senior counsel K.M. Vijayan here, I decided in 2019 to explore the subject deeper in various angles.

Article 32(3) of Constitution of India says so,

32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part.—
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.

Statistics

S.No	High Court Name	Civil	Criminal	Total Cases	Pending Writs	% of Writs
1	Allahabad High Court	420,043	378,888	798,931	286,765	35.89%
2	Bombay High Court	462,687	92,129	554,816	128,649	23.19%
3	Calcutta High Court	188,685	36,436	225,121	–	0.00%
4	Gauhati High Court	44,289	10,527	54,816	23,217	42.35%
5	High Court for State of Telangana	211,877	36,335	248,212	129,727	52.26%
6	High Court of Andhra Pradesh	186,214	32,288	218,502	112 (Doubtful)	0.05%
7	High Court Of Chhattisgarh	49,575	28,077	77,652	28,517	36.72%
8	High Court of Delhi	72,414	26,526	98,940	41,854	42.30%
9	High Court of Gujarat	101,467	50,669	152,136	506 (Doubtful)	0.33%
10	High Court of Himachal Pradesh	69,976	9,831	79,807	13,045	16.35%
11	High Court of Jammu and Kashmir	43,622	6,788	50,410	21,048	41.75%
12	High Court of Jharkhand	41,539	45,885	87,424	26,710	30.55%
13	High Court of Karnataka	239,725	42,018	281,743	71,252	25.29%
14	High Court of Kerala	175,453	45,791	221,244	85,192	38.51%
15	High Court of Madhya Pradesh	250,808	154,057	404,865	119,088	29.41%
16	High Court of Manipur	4,304	457	4,761	2,354	49.44%
17	High Court of Meghalaya	1,308	160	1,468	747	50.89%
18	High Court of Punjab and Haryana	283,359	166,895	450,254	183 (Doubtful)	0.04%
19	High Court of Rajasthan	414,971	148,113	563,084	157,668	28.00%
20	High Court of Sikkim	174	35	209	101	48.33%
21	High Court of Tripura	1,368	235	1,603	620	38.68%
22	High Court of Uttarakhand	24,256	16,687	40,943	16,834	41.12%
23	Madras High Court	524,174	61,435	585,609	87,240	14.90%
24	Orissa High Court	130,834	52,746	183,580	81,447	44.37%
25	Patna High Court	111,608	114,222	225,830	76,495	33.87%

	TOTAL	4,054,730	1,557,230	5,611,960	1,399,371	24.94%

Source: https://njdg.ecourts.gov.in/hcnjdgnew/?p=main/pend_dashboard ; As on 28-Sep-2021

So, a total of 25% of the total cases pending

Identified the various stakeholders that may be impacted if this relief materializes.

If the Writs are allowed to be filed and decided at District Court level,

Litigant Public: The litigant public doesn’t have to incur huge expenses in traveling to the venue of the High Court, engaging a High Court advocate, Have it listed and then keep running expenses from time to time. They can filed their Writ at the District Court itself and engage a competent advocate locally and have considerably less expenses and less timelines to face.
Learned Advocates: Advocate can take up/file Writs at District level and they do not have to move the High Court. Those advocates who do not practice at High Courts currently, can very well handle Writs at District Court itself, by providing cost-effective legal services.
Hon’ble Judiciary at District Courts: Considering the current strength of the judges at Supreme Court (33 as on 27-09-2021), High Courts (633 as on 01-09-2021; 465 vacancies as per Vacancy report of Dept of Justice, https://doj.gov.in/appointment-of-judges/vacancy-positions), District Courts (), and the constant onslaught of Writs being filed at High Courts year-on-year, it is near impossible for the 33+633 Judges to get a considerable grip on the Writ-pendency and dispose of the Writs in a time-bound manner. The District Judiciary also gets to work on one of the jurisdictions that they do not have access to, which is Writ Jurisdiction.

Considering the above facts and need of the hour, it is imperative that the Parliament makes a law (even for a limited time like a year) to decentralize the Writ jurisdiction and grant District judges (including Addl DJs, Special Courts, Family Courts, Labour Courts etc) to take up and dispose Writ petitions at their level itself.

List of Goals here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit)